Originally posted by FeceMan
Assertation: Ethical relativism is a moral theory that is based upon subjectivity.Statement: The presupposition that rape is wrong is based on the inherent reaction to rape.
Statement: This is an absolute that "rape is wrong."
Declaration: It is unlikely that anyone would argue against this.
Query: Is there any particular reason why rape is not wrong?
Statement: FeceMan was not "dismissing" any position; rather, he was stating how ethical theories work.
Statement: Actions being right and wrong are not based upon circumstances.
Declaration: Actions may be less right or less wrong--or, conversely, more right and more wrong--depending on the circumstances and the intent of the one acting.
Concession: This is the viewpoint of one who does not assume that amorality is inherent.
artist What a post!
What is your fave. position then?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Assertation: Ethical relativism is a moral theory that is based upon subjectivity.Statement: The presupposition that rape is wrong is based on the inherent reaction to rape.
Statement: This is an absolute that "rape is wrong."
Declaration: It is unlikely that anyone would argue against this.
Query: Is there any particular reason why rape is not wrong?
Statement: FeceMan was not "dismissing" any position; rather, he was stating how ethical theories work.
Statement: Actions being right and wrong are not based upon circumstances.
Declaration: Actions may be less right or less wrong--or, conversely, more right and more wrong--depending on the circumstances and the intent of the one acting.
Concession: This is the viewpoint of one who does not assume that amorality is inherent.
You've been playing Knights of the Old Republic haven't you?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Assertation: Ethical relativism is a moral theory that is based upon subjectivity.
Ethical relativism is a perspective that refuses to accept absolutes in favor of considering the circumstances before passing judgement. It isn't a matter of thinking there are no rights and wrongs.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The presupposition that rape is wrong is based on the inherent reaction to rape.
Whose reaction, the victim or the criminal?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: This is an absolute that "rape is wrong."
I agree with you. But I also know I don't speak for everyone. This is what I feel is at the heart of your question, not the rights and wrongs of rape or murder.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: It is unlikely that anyone would argue against this.
Unlikely, but not 100%.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Is there any particular reason why rape is not wrong?
none that I can think of
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan was not "dismissing" any position; rather, he was stating how ethical theories work.
Feceman certainly came across as asking why there needs to be any measure of due process when it comes to his opinion of right and wrong.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Actions being right and wrong are not based upon circumstances.
Declaration: Actions may be less right or less wrong--or, conversely, more right and more wrong--depending on the circumstances and the intent of the one acting.
The statement is negated by the declaration. You know this.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Concession: This is the viewpoint of one who does not assume that amorality is inherent.
Morality being inherent isn't the point. We learn these things from our parents and peers. Or, in the case of some, we believe they were dropped off on stone tablets. We still pick and choose, no matter the circumstances.
Originally posted by Devil King
Ethical relativism is a perspective that refuses to accept absolutes in favor of considering the circumstances [b]before passing judgement. It isn't a matter of thinking there are no rights and wrongs.Whose reaction, the victim or the criminal?
I agree with you. But I also know I don't speak for everyone. This is what I feel is at the heart of your question, not the rights and wrongs of rape or murder.
Unlikely, but not 100%.
none that I can think of
Feceman certainly came across as asking why there needs to be any measure of due process when it comes to his opinion of right and wrong.
The statement is negated by the declaration. You know this.
Morality being inherent isn't the point. We learn these things from our parents and peers. Or, in the case of some, we believe they were dropped off on stone tablets. We still pick and choose, no matter the circumstances. [/B]
Point by point, serious stuff then 😆
Originally posted by Devil King
Ethical relativism is a perspective that refuses to accept absolutes in favor of considering the circumstances [b]before passing judgement. It isn't a matter of thinking there are no rights and wrongs.[/b]
Statement: Moral relativism is based upon subjectivity.
Whose reaction, the victim or the criminal?
I agree with you. But I also know I don't speak for everyone. This is what I feel is at the heart of your question, not the rights and wrongs of rape or murder.Unlikely, but not 100%.
Pre-emptive statement: FeceMan knows that you disagree with this.
Feceman certainly came across as asking why there needs to be any measure of due process when it comes to his opinion of right and wrong.
Statement: FeceMan has only described the process of creating moral theories.
The statement is negated by the declaration. You know this.
Morality being inherent isn't the point. We learn these things from our parents and peers. Or, in the case of some, we believe they were dropped off on stone tablets. We still pick and choose, no matter the circumstances.
Query: Why are subhumans derailing this thread?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Quotation: "In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."Statement: Moral relativism is based upon subjectivity.
Statement: Captain Fantastic's statement is irrelevant. However, it is likely that both the victim and the rapist believe that rape is wrong.
Assertation: Anyone who does not believe that rape is inherently wrong has a malfunctioning "moral compass."
Pre-emptive statement: FeceMan knows that you disagree with this.
Statement: FeceMan has made no such claim.
Statement: FeceMan has only described the process of creating moral theories.
Statement: FeceMan believes there are degrees of right and wrong, not that there are situations that cause things that are wrong to be right (and vice-versa).
Statement: If morality is inherent, then it follows that certain actions have inherent morality in them and thus are universal.
Query: Why are subhumans derailing this thread?
I like your form...the HK47 way of posting a debate works really really well...IMO.
Re: Re: Re: So, how long before incest becomes morally acceptable?
Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
But you think about doing it with another family member? Are you hot?
I don't believe in incest. And I don't think sexually or romantically about members of my family.
What I look like has nothing to do with this subject.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You're missing the point.Why is hurting someone wrong? You can't give an adequate reason--which is the problem with ethics. We presuppose certain things are wrong by our conscience and then try to explain them logically.
your a little confused. generally, people{who often oppose it} do not understand the implications of there being no ultimate right and wrong in FORMAL LOGIC. since any two statements, when looked at by a COMPLETELY unbiased, perspective are neither right nor wrong or one preferrable to the other.
this is often taken as backing to support that logic is inadequate way of deciding things in real life{or as you mention, the PROBLEM with ethics}.
for most ethics i do agree with you. since they are not based on logic but on dogma. however, you CAN have ethics based on logic, once you realise that LOGICALLY, it is ILLOGICAL for humans to ADHERE to a completely unbiased view point, as our very EXISTANCE is based on the BIASED concepts of "existance" as opposed to non existance. self PRESERVATION{which applies first to ourselves but also to all around us as if we HURT sum1 else, we are introducing violence/suffering in the world which begets more violence, as we LOGICALLY know, and that will only come back to affect US with the same negetivity, hence it is logical, for the sake of our biased self preservation, to treat others as we would like to treat ourselves instinctually, since we LOGICALLY, know that we are not noticeably different beings from others and in their necessities and desirec} as opposed to nihhlism. empathy, for ourselves and others{a lesser emotion but present nonetheless} as opposed to senseless cruelty. etc etc.
from THIS we can logically see that it is not only foolish, but UNDESIREABLE, for humans to practically decide based on COMPLETELY unbiased formal logic{hence the answer to your question of "why it is wrong to hurt any1". it isnt BASED on illogical presupposition. but on everything logical. plus, in so far as a concoiunce goes, we also know that LOGICALLY, it is based on the basic biases which give rise to our exisytance, and in such cases are as logical as anything else u can think of in formal logic}. the only one who can really base decisions on such a thing would be a god beyond the concepts that make/define us, or anything else. to whom, existance and non existance are no more preferrable than the other.
{on an interesting not, based on comlpete unbiased logic, one CAN NOT make decisions, since there is no motivation to choose any of the options}. in short, ethics can be based on logic.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
your a little confused. generally, people{who often oppose it} do not understand the implications of there being no ultimate right and wrong in FORMAL LOGIC. since any two statements, when looked at by a COMPLETELY unbiased, perspective are neither right nor wrong or one preferrable to the other.this is often taken as backing to support that logic is inadequate way of deciding things in real life{or as you mention, the PROBLEM with ethics}.
for most ethics i do agree with you. since they are not based on logic but on dogma. however, you CAN have ethics based on logic, once you realise that LOGICALLY, it is ILLOGICAL for humans to ADHERE to a completely unbiased view point, as our very EXISTANCE is based on the BIASED concepts of "existance" as opposed to non existance. self PRESERVATION{which applies first to ourselves but also to all around us as if we HURT sum1 else, we are introducing violence/suffering in the world which begets more violence, as we LOGICALLY know, and that will only come back to affect US with the same negetivity, hence it is logical, for the sake of our biased self preservation, to treat others as we would like to treat ourselves instinctually, since we LOGICALLY, know that we are not noticeably different beings from others and in their necessities and desirec} as opposed to nihhlism. empathy, for ourselves and others{a lesser emotion but present nonetheless} as opposed to senseless cruelty. etc etc.
from THIS we can logically see that it is not only foolish, but UNDESIREABLE, for humans to practically decide based on COMPLETELY unbiased formal logic{hence the answer to your question of "why it is wrong to hurt any1". it isnt BASED on illogical presupposition. but on everything logical. plus, in so far as a concoiunce goes, we also know that LOGICALLY, it is based on the basic biases which give rise to our exisytance, and in such cases are as logical as anything else u can think of in formal logic}. the only one who can really base decisions on such a thing would be a god beyond the concepts that make/define us, or anything else. to whom, existance and non existance are no more preferrable than the other.
{on an interesting not, based on comlpete unbiased logic, one CAN NOT make decisions, since there is no motivation to choose any of the options}. in short, ethics can be based on logic.
Declaration: This pleases FeceMan.
Statement: Leonheartmm's post contains much circularity and psuedo-philosophical "material" found in The Matrix series.
Admission: Leonheartmm approaches the subject with far less pretentiousness and empty talk than those films did.